And Constantine was known as "Brick Wall Pasha" - since he was thick as brick.


That is very intriguing. Can you sum it up in terms of geography?

The worst case senario I have in mind includes only Thessaly and Epirus.
Ok... just thinking out POD's loudly here. :angel:

1. For a best case scenario... the Greek revolution of 1807
2. For a post-revolution worst case scenario... Venizelos dies an infant in 1864.
 
Ok... just thinking out POD's loudly here. :angel:

1. For a best case scenario... the Greek revolution of 1807
2. For a post-revolution worst case scenario... Venizelos dies an infant in 1864.
Napoleon gets into the Ottoman Empire to support Greece and partition the place with Austria and Russia, instead of going to squash Portugal ?
 
Napoleon gets into the Ottoman Empire to support Greece and partition the place with Austria and Russia, instead of going to squash Portugal ?
Hell no. The Greeks rebel with direct Russian and British support, both are at war with the Ottomans with Seniavin's fleet in Aegean along a RN squadron under Duckworth while Napoleon is backing the Ottomans. Even after Tilsit Britain remains at war with the Ottomans till 1809 or so. Selim III is killed replaced by Mustapha IV. For good measure future Mahmud II might or might not survive it was only pure chance the janissaries did not find him in the bath furnace...
 
Hell no. The Greeks rebel with direct Russian and British support, both are at war with the Ottomans with Seniavin's fleet in Aegean along a RN squadron under Duckworth while Napoleon is backing the Ottomans. Even after Tilsit Britain remains at war with the Ottomans till 1809 or so. Selim III is killed replaced by Mustapha IV. For good measure future Mahmud II might or might not survive it was only pure chance the janissaries did not find him in the bath furnace...
Why would Napoleon back the Ottomans, when he can use their carcass to buy brownie points with Austria and Russia ?
 
And Constantine was known as "Brick Wall Pasha" - since he was thick as brick.


That is very intriguing. Can you sum it up in terms of geography?

The worst case senario I have in mind includes only Thessaly and Epirus.
I’m assuming that line is purely for Northern Macedonia? If so it totally makes sense. Further east that line gets much more wiggly for what people do and do not want.

This is also assuming people who know the areas are the ones drawing the borders. If a great power gets involved no one can predict where they draw the border.
 
Last edited:
So just some speculation for us viewers in the meantime.
What does everyone thing will be the future for greece?
In the short term its going to be far more prosperous, but i am afraid its going to paint a bigger target on its back when(assumingly) they seize european turkey
I'll give it a shot:
Greek Relations
Britain: A bit distant due to being (lightly) punished for their smuggling shenanigans but Greece knows they can't afford to make an enemy of Britain as long as they're the leading naval power so it'll be back to business as usual within a decade.
Russia: Will probably cozy up to them as much as they can without alienating Britain in a diplomatic balancing act and look for potential opportunities in the next war.
France: Could potentially replace Britain but we'll have to see how they develop though. I can see relations getting better in the next few years while the Greeks are slightly upset at the Brits.
The Ottomans: Greeks know they are furious with them for their backstabbing and will be keeping a closer eye on them but will be distracted in the short term. Will probably not have any conflict until the next Russo-Turkish war... unless Cyprus explodes.
Italian Confederation: Probably looking on with great interest since unification could bring either a new enemy or ally.
Serbia and Montenegro: New potential allies against the Ottomans.
Wallachia and Moldavia: Also new potential allies against the Ottomans. If they unite soon into Romania even better.
 
Well no one has said anything on a potential crisis and I find that weird. I mean this Greece is very much without a major economic or political crisis in a lot of years, I remember economic crisis in the 1830's due to Revolution loans and one minor one in the start of the Russo-Turkish war. The political climate has shifted drastically towards a populist and nationalist party taking total control and Greece hasn't felt any major setback to be afraid. I see a reckless war with the Ottomans soon enough and although it would more likely lead to a defeat it wouldn't be on OTL 1896 level and more than likely the Great Powers would force a truce and a return to status quo. A lot of Greek lives wasted for nothing in the end and a suspicion growing against the Great Powers who although stopped the war which was going badly but they also didn't award Greece what they thought they deserved. From there we could see a more evolved Greece who knows its strengths better and has a better understanding of its position.


1. For a best case scenario... the Greek revolution of 1807
Why not successful Orlof Revolt? The more time you have the better I think. Though the British help in the 1807 situation is better that the total Russian domination in the Orlov Revolt. Maybe a Serbian-like situation in this scenario is good for starting a base of a state rather than independence from the start.
 
I have always hoped for an greco italian alliance troughout the 20th century, it could do great things for both countries.
The issue has always been wanting overlapping pieces of the Ottoman Empire. The Greek desires stem from both historic control and current population, which is unchanged in this timeline. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable than me can comment on the driving factors from the Italians, but I had always thought, outside Dalmatia where they had historic and population claims, that they were much more imperial: economic concerns, power projection, prestige, etc.
 
The issue has always been wanting overlapping pieces of the Ottoman Empire. The Greek desires stem from both historic control and current population, which is unchanged in this timeline. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable than me can comment on the driving factors from the Italians, but I had always thought, outside Dalmatia where they had historic and population claims, that they were much more imperial: economic concerns, power projection, prestige, etc.
Well TTL Greece controls the Dodecanese so Italy doesn't have a base to hope onto the Ottomans. Libya and Tunisia would be the goals as were OTL and those 2 Greece doesn't contest. The fact that this Italy is a confederation is even more complicated really.


Edit: Is Dalmatia under Ottoman control at this point ITTL or is it under Austro-Hungarian control?
It was under the Austrians.
 
Well TTL Greece controls the Dodecanese so Italy doesn't have a base to hope onto the Ottomans. Libya and Tunisia would be the goals as were OTL and those 2 Greece doesn't contest. The fact that this Italy is a confederation is even more complicated really.
Sorry I didn't mean to imply that it was impossible ITTL. My point is that the issues that prevented it from the Greek side haven't changed. If thing will be different it will be because of the Italians.
 
Ah yes, imaginary maps is my favorite subreddit and I love that map makers stuff in particular. They’re incredibly talented. Love the Greek Crimea after intervention in the Russian civil war. That’s an idea I’ve never seen before. Obviously incredibly unlikely but still very cool,
Do you know were to find that TL?
 
Sorry for the double post. But I figured I’d tell you all an interesting story. Recently I learned of the island of Providencia. It’s a tiny island in the middle of Caribbean that Columbia somehow owns despite it being closer to Nicaragua. So I wondered if there were other islands like these, particularly in the Mediterranean. I had some free time at work today and thought I’d look at all of the islands Turkey owns to see if there were any obvious ones the Greeks would be interested in taking in TTL. So I went to google and as usual Wikipedia came through as the place to start looking before digging deeper. I decided to ignore the Aegean islands as there’s the two obvious ones and everything else probably depends on who owns the nearest coast. Same with the Sea of Marmara. So I checked every island with a link elsewhere. And almost all of them were uninhabited. But that wasn’t the surprising part. Most islands are uninhabited after all. The surprising part was that almost every one of the islands had been lived on at some point. They had ruins, or a castles, or a church. They all had been lived on and then abandoned. A few relatively recently. Just kind of amazing to think that a hundred island towns rose and fell over the centuries, and no one ever thinks of them. I suppose that’s true for most parts of the world, but I found it very interesting.

Any way I found a total of 1 island that was both populated at that point in the time line, and majority Greek. The population got moved during the population exchange and is now, surprise, basically uninhabited. Behold, the fruits of my labor, Tersane Island!

 
I was doing some reading about the first balkan war, and one thing I noticed was that before it begun the population of Greece was 2.6 million. In the year 1912.

In this timeline Greece has a population of 2.2 million in 1860. At this rate it will be over 5 million by the time the war kicks off. Additionally Greece was the considered the weakest of the big three balkan states, only raising an army of 125,000. This army did very well for itself, but still doesn't compare it absolute terms to the 250,000 serbs or 600,000 Bulgarians. Greece can probably raise a number of men similar to the first balkan war on its own right now, and it's navy is not behind either.

It's extremely impressive how strong Greece is right now compared to our history. Especially when you consider its economic strength will allow for a better utilization of that larger population.

A further difference is the political parties priorities. The nationalist party, wanting expansion, will probably ensure the army remains large, well funded, and well equipped. The question will be if the leadership and organization is also maintained at a high quality. Though knowing Panos Kolokotronis was in the military after war sets things up for a solid tradition of martial aptitude.

This all means that Greece is in a far better state to take the fight directly to the ottomans. Now, this doesn't mean they could win in a 1 v 1. In the early stages perhaps, but in the long term, as long as one country has more than 5x the population of the other, the smaller will get grinded down. It's possible that the greeks could make a mistake in this area, thinking that if they mobilize to the hilt, and then take a chunk of territory in a blazing campaign of local superiority, the inevitable great power interference will allow them to keep their gains, but I doubt that Britain will look kindly on that sort of blatant expansion, at least once they start trying to prop up the ottomans as a buffer to the Russians.

A wiser move would be to open up a second front in a Russo-Turkish war. This was narrowly avoided in the alt crimean war, to great gains for Greece, but I doubt that it can be avoided a second time. First of all because there's little the ottomans would be willing to give that would satisfy Greece the same way as Epirus and Thessaly. Perhaps Cyprus? But if the British hold that it will be a non-starter. And Salonika is simply a no go. Thus the nationalist greek government would go to war, However with the greater land, population, and wealth Greece will have in, lets say 20 years for an 1880 war like our timeline, it will be able to offer a far more credible second front then they could have offered in the 1850s. 200-250K troops would divert at least an equal number of ottomans, and probably more if they want to have a chance of holding the greeks back. Such a diversion is utterly untenable for the Turks, considering they put around 400k men on the field last time. They'll need at least that many to hold back the Russians, and probably more as the decades roll back.

A complete ottoman collapse in an 1880s war could allow Greece to make spectacular gains, assuming ofc that the other great powers do not interfere too strongly. Many suspicious eyes must be cast on Russia right now, considering their diplomatic blunders in the great eurasian war. And of course if Greece + Russia do break the Turkish back in the 1880s, that would open up a whole new dimension for the timeline. The great enemy would cease to the Ottomans, and instead it would be politics with the other balkan minors, and adventuring as a secondary power, with perhaps an eventual final showdown (perhaps related to a world war) with an eye toward Anatolia.

Basically, I'm just talking about how far Greece got in the 1910s, and considering how much further this Greece could go when it's in a similar position, but in the 1860s.
 
I was doing some reading about the first balkan war, and one thing I noticed was that before it begun the population of Greece was 2.6 million. In the year 1912.

In this timeline Greece has a population of 2.2 million in 1860. At this rate it will be over 5 million by the time the war kicks off. Additionally Greece was the considered the weakest of the big three balkan states, only raising an army of 125,000. This army did very well for itself, but still doesn't compare it absolute terms to the 250,000 serbs or 600,000 Bulgarians. Greece can probably raise a number of men similar to the first balkan war on its own right now, and it's navy is not behind either.

It's extremely impressive how strong Greece is right now compared to our history. Especially when you consider its economic strength will allow for a better utilization of that larger population.

A further difference is the political parties priorities. The nationalist party, wanting expansion, will probably ensure the army remains large, well funded, and well equipped. The question will be if the leadership and organization is also maintained at a high quality. Though knowing Panos Kolokotronis was in the military after war sets things up for a solid tradition of martial aptitude.

This all means that Greece is in a far better state to take the fight directly to the ottomans. Now, this doesn't mean they could win in a 1 v 1. In the early stages perhaps, but in the long term, as long as one country has more than 5x the population of the other, the smaller will get grinded down. It's possible that the greeks could make a mistake in this area, thinking that if they mobilize to the hilt, and then take a chunk of territory in a blazing campaign of local superiority, the inevitable great power interference will allow them to keep their gains, but I doubt that Britain will look kindly on that sort of blatant expansion, at least once they start trying to prop up the ottomans as a buffer to the Russians.

A wiser move would be to open up a second front in a Russo-Turkish war. This was narrowly avoided in the alt crimean war, to great gains for Greece, but I doubt that it can be avoided a second time. First of all because there's little the ottomans would be willing to give that would satisfy Greece the same way as Epirus and Thessaly. Perhaps Cyprus? But if the British hold that it will be a non-starter. And Salonika is simply a no go. Thus the nationalist greek government would go to war, However with the greater land, population, and wealth Greece will have in, lets say 20 years for an 1880 war like our timeline, it will be able to offer a far more credible second front then they could have offered in the 1850s. 200-250K troops would divert at least an equal number of ottomans, and probably more if they want to have a chance of holding the greeks back. Such a diversion is utterly untenable for the Turks, considering they put around 400k men on the field last time. They'll need at least that many to hold back the Russians, and probably more as the decades roll back.

A complete ottoman collapse in an 1880s war could allow Greece to make spectacular gains, assuming ofc that the other great powers do not interfere too strongly. Many suspicious eyes must be cast on Russia right now, considering their diplomatic blunders in the great eurasian war. And of course if Greece + Russia do break the Turkish back in the 1880s, that would open up a whole new dimension for the timeline. The great enemy would cease to the Ottomans, and instead it would be politics with the other balkan minors, and adventuring as a secondary power, with perhaps an eventual final showdown (perhaps related to a world war) with an eye toward Anatolia.

Basically, I'm just talking about how far Greece got in the 1910s, and considering how much further this Greece could go when it's in a similar position, but in the 1860s.
Greece is definitely in a better place demographically and financially to field a military ready to compete in the Balkans. One important thing to keep in mind though is how exposed Greece is to naval intervention. That means they can only make moves on land that are not going to be opposed at sea by the great powers. I believe at this point both the UK and France dwarf the Greek navy and will indefinitely. That's not to say they are powerless. Greece is building a respectable force, and quickly adapting new technologies and building out a merchant marine. Still they need at least one of Britain or France willing to side with them, or both of them to sit back if they don't want to see their economy wrecked.

This actually makes me wonder about the future. It would still be decades away, but I could see Greece benefitting in a huge way from leading the way in submarine development if they want to achieve more independence of action with regards to the great powers. They can never go toe to toe in capital ships, but a well developed defense based on mines and submarines could create great picket lines to protect their major ports from more powerful navies while keeping the Aegean largely open for their own communication and transport.
 
Top